text:
Is a helicopter ride unsafe for young children?
Recently we were in London and noticed how so many helicopter rides were there. While booking a ride I found out that they do not take a child under 4 years of age, none of the Heli ride companies I found in London allowed any child under 4 to take their rides.
So we were unable to take that ride since our child is  3 years old. I was wondering why is it unsafe for children to fly in a heli when the same or much younger children fly in a commercial airliner all over the world all the time?
Obviously I do not question their judgment and I do appreciate their concern for safety I just would like to know what makes it unsafe so we can prepare accordingly before taking that ride when he is 4.
I have been in helicopters I do not find them particularly challenging for a passenger. Could the primary reason be that these heli tours are not ordinary flight from A to B, they do quite some sprints and sharp turns up there to add to the fun.
Edit
Some references to support the question

Must be 4 or over, under 16’s must be accompanied by an adult.

HeliAir

No children under the age of 4 are permitted to fly with us.

RedHill Helicopters

No children under the age of four are permitted to fly with us.

The London Helicopter

Minimum age: 4 (under 16s must be accompanied by a paying adult)

Virgin Experience Days

I am 100% sure that the pilots of these pleasure flights do everything thy can to avoid "sprints and sharp turns" - generally that is a surefire way to get your passengers to not enjoy their flight and result in your clearing up sick from the cabin.

It's not so much sprints or sharp turns as the problem with seat belts or rather the lack thereof for infants. Any craft that can encounter sudden speed or directional changes needs some method to secure passengers. Since you can't use a normal seat belt on an infant, well...

I imagine there are some convenience factors involved.  Yes, young children fly on commercial airlines as a matter of course, but do their fellow passengers generally appreciate having them?

@jamesqf interestingly they sure do love the one I have. On the take off roll he is always like 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 lift off. And I always hear people laugh on that

@Hanky Panky: Maybe your kid is different.  Get seated near one who spends the flight screaming & crying, or whose parents think it's ok to do a diaper change in their seat, and you might understand why some people would prefer not to take chances :-)

Some people laughing is not (necessarily) quite the same thing as fellow passengers' general appreciation.

Based on your post, it appears you may have read into the prohibition (there was no reason given, including safety).  Perhaps the idea started when a pilot had to clean up his chopper after a leaky diaper and he wanted to be really sure in the future, so he chose 4 years of age.

You're looking for more on this? Like the CAA specifying the minimum age of passengers allowed on pleasure flights in a helicopter? Im pretty sure its left to the commander's discretion  but i'll see if I can find more.

Yep just a little, any published reasoning by the operators or any guidelines by the CAA which do instruct this age limitation on a pleasure flight. Or even a document that shows they decided it themselves

Answer updated. @HankyPanky

@Jamiec enjoy the bounty :)

A few notes of update.

Evidence from other operators that there is no hard age limit

There is no upper or lower age limit for pleasure flight however we recommend that children under 12 are accompanied by an adult.
  Central Helicopters T&C
Generally anyone can be a passenger on a pleasure flight. Young children should be accompanied by an adult.
  Hields Aviation FAQ

GUIDANCE FOR EVENT ORGANISERS
AND HELICOPTER OPERATORS AT SPECIAL EVENTS covers Local flights (They call it A to A) and makes no special mention of minimum or maximum age limits. You can be fairly sure this document would be where any such specification would be made. Along with CAP 789, which is linked below, which also has no special mention of age limits for flights on helicopters

It is very hard to prove a negative, but I hope this is enough to convince you. Operators are under no obligation to justify their rules.

Original answer follows:
There is nothing inherently stopping an infant taking a flight on board a helicopter.
I suspect this has everything to do with the operators of these flights do not have the equipment to properly ensure the security and safety of infants.
Airlines typically provide extender belts for infants on laps. They also have provision for dealing with emergency situations with infants on board. This is because it is what their customers require and makes commercial sense to provide those services.
CAP 789 (which is guidance for operators) has something to say about this (emphasis mine)

EU-OPS, JAR-OPS 3 and the ANO require the aircraft commander to ensure that at
  certain times each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his safety belt
  (or harness where provided) properly secured. These regulations also require the
  aircraft commander to ensure that multiple occupancy of seats does not occur except
  by one adult and one infant who is properly secured by a supplementary loop belt or
  other restraint device.

The clientele of helicopter pleasure flights probably do not regularly require bringing infants aboard. So there is little requirement or commercial pressure for them to do so.
The "must be 4 years of age" is quite possibly entirely arbitrary - in that they are probably large enough to use the standard harnesses/belts/noise protection provided. Operators probably do not routinely carry things like infant noise protection, and helicopters are noisy environments.
Some child restraint systems used in cars are appropriate for use in aircraft, and some operators may have allowed you to bring your car child seat on board for use with your infant (More info is available here). You would need to call around a few operators to find out.

BTW I fly from a London aerodrome where many of these London sightseeing helicopter flights are operated from. I can ask around if you still want to go.

Wish I had asked this question earlier but unfortunately I am not in the UK right now. Thank you so much for your offer of assistance. Maybe during the Winter Holidays we can :)

Winter is not the time to take pleasure flights over London - unless you like looking at clouds and rain :)

Oops. Thanks for the valuable intel

As another London pilot I agree with @Jamiec, although you do get the occasional nice day. A clear day after rain often will have good visibility.

@GdD you're totally right. I fly VFR conditions throughout the winter. But for any sort of experience flight at any time of year you need to be prepared to be cancelled/postponed - often more than once. The number of people I see on these sort of things getting annoyed that they've been cancelled, often with short notice, is incredible. I sometimes wonder if they'd prefer the pilot to fly them in bumpy conditions where they see/experience nothing of any interest.

One other reason may well be that the hearing protection just will not fit, and Heli are not in general the worlds quietest aircraft.

Those were my thoughts exactly.  It's about the inability of a helicopter to safely accommodate an infant using restraints in the helo.  It has nothing to do with noise

@Jamiec and any other London area pilots feel free to join me in chat https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/65469/london-pilots

Well, in-case of a rotor failure, you're unlikely to fare well, regardless of age :)

When my son was about 1 we took him on a helicopter ride over Amsterdam Airport. He did not like the noise at first but became fascinated by the rotor blades turning and quickly settled down. There was no issue with taking him on board for that ride, they provided a strap-on kiddy belt that slips into the safety belt of the parent holding the child.
Image source
You can book your under 2 for a helicopter ride to see Uluru. No safety issues there.
So I can provide a sample of a situation where it was allowed - if safety regulations are adhered to, I cannot think of one single reason for prohibiting an under 4 to take a helicopter ride.

Thanks! Don't know why someone down-voted this relevant answer

Not me but I dont think "" followed by "I don't know the answer" is actually a valuable/relevant answer to the question.

@Jamiec Well, I'm providing a sample of a situation where it was allowed, which indicates that it is not a universal rule.

Nobody ever said it was a universal rule. The question was about the safety aspect of infants on a helicopter, and reasons why they might be prohibited by operators. As well as preparations for future taking small children onboard.

Yes, I cannot think of one single reason, and did not feel irresponsible as a parent at the time.

Helicopters are loud.  A few web searches suggest that the volume inside an airliner is 85-105 decibels but as much as 115 db in a helicopter.  (Decibels are a log scale, so 115 is a lot more than 105, and the 105 is generally just during takeoff and landing.)
Hearing loss from loud noises may be a greater risk at younger ages.

Aside from the fact that infants may perceive a sound as much higher – up to 20 dB louder – than an older child or an adult (NYT), young kids can’t always articulate the fact that their ears are hurting them.
  (http://blog.pksafety.com/sound-advice-earmuffs-for-kids/)

The sound isolating headphones provided inside the helicopter may not be appropriate for infant heads because of their size and weight.  The skull isn't fully fused until about age two.  The brain grows rapidly until about age four, when it approaches its maximum size.  (Infant ear mufflers are becoming more and more common.  They are very lightweight.)
By age four, I'd expect a kid would be aware and coordinated enough to cover their ears if the sound were uncomfortably loud.  They're probably also better able to express themselves if the volume became a problem.  By age four, the provided headphones might be a better fit.

Turboprops, which many airlines use on smaller routes, tend to be 10-30 db louder than a normal jet. I've never heard of small children being banned from those.

@T.E.D.  10-30 db louder inside the cabin?  It seems all passengers would need hearing protection.

I don't know exactly how much louder but yes turboprops are much louder. I have flown in an ATR many times and the noise level is far higher than lets say A330

@AdrianMcCarthy - Yes (to both).

Good answers here, but I might add it could also just be that the operator does not want to deal with the occasional unruly toddler loose in the cabin, pulling on and breaking stuff and potentially interfering with the pilot / flight controls.
Further there is the run-away kid in the vicinity of the aircraft when boarding and exiting on the ground to worry about. Insurance coverage may also play a big role here.

This seems on target. The "Terrible Twos" really lasts up to age 3 for many children, and during this time, commands from a parent are often met with a defiant "NO!" and non-compliance with the order. Tantrums abound. As Trevor points out, this leads to horrendous safety issues, if a child suddenly bolts across the tarmac, into areas where only flight crew and maintenance crew are supposed to be, it creates all sorts of safety issues for the child and others.  On top of that, one or both parents will then be running after the child, compounding the issues. Age 4 is past most of this.

@Developer63 Why does it lead to safety issues only in the UK? and not in the US for example. Over there even a lap child is allowed in the Heli

@HankyPanky Health & Safety in the UK is, from my understanding, a fair bit more strict than our general safety laws in the US, and is also probably far more uniform in areas like this. Besides, everyone knows those British kids are absolute terrors while American children are all complete angels. /sarcasm

It's pretty strict here in Australia as well, yet Ozzie under 4s are allowed on board helicopter sightseeing flights.

@HankyPanky my comment was a hypothesis towards reverse-engineering the most plausible rationale. I was blissfully unaware of USA/UK/Aus differences. A coworker today mentioned he went on a helicopter ride in Maui, HI, USA with his 18 month old son, who had his own seat. Puzzling, yes; one explanation could be that London's long history of insurance, rating everything under the sun (e.g., Lloyd's of London), plus a higher ease of filing lawsuits, prevailing, and collecting, could be a factor, with the outcome that insurance for the tour operator costs less if children < 4 are excluded.

Self answer posted after the experience:
Why Yes it is important!
1 year flew past so fast. Our son is now 4+ and we were table to take him on a heli ride in London this time. I can now see why there is that practice (at least generally in the UK)

First reason is the fact that a smaller child will not be able to enjoy the views outside, our captain used padding below his seat to make him sit a little higher so he could see outside. Without that it would have been a boring 45 minutes ride for a small child which could complicate the flight. Why so?

Because it is extremely important that all passengers keep their seat belts fastened during the flight. If a small child has a boredom attack half way through and wants to be in your lap that is not going to sit fine with the pilot. For infants that is not such a big problem but for children who do have some personality this could be a problem, which causes another problem:

Headsets! A Heli is loud and it vibrates and not all helis are equipped with aircon.  30 minutes into the flight our son started saying he wants to take off his headset and despite all our requests he still did it and while trying to convince him not to do that i had to take off my headset for a second and boy was it loud?
Specially during landings and take offs the headset needs to remain on and smaller children have a tendency of ignoring their parents' instructions when they matter the most. Older children would be a little easier to handle.

I don't know if it is a rule or not but it is indeed a good practice. This was correctly guessed by a few answers specially the one by @mins.

There doesn't seem to have strong reasons for not accepting young children in helicopters. There are companies that don't have this 4-year limit:

All ages from 1 month to 100 years are welcomed for our helicopter
  sightseeing tour.

Source: Niagara Helicopters in Ontario (part of Helicopter Transport Services)
My guess is for a tour flight, all passengers have headphones, and the infant could feel quite isolated. Add to this the unusual feeling of being airborne, and infants may not like it at all.

In any small aircraft everyone aboard, including animals, must be secured in the following ways:

They must be fastened to a seat
Their hearing must be protected
They must be continent

Achieving these 3 prerequisites is more difficult for children and the younger they are, the more problematic it is.

Tyler that makes sense but the confusing part is that in the USA where you are, there is no such restriction. Some US heli tour operators even say Children 0-1 years are free. That 4 year reasoning is something specific to the UK it looks like

I've never been a "continuous expanses of land" in an aircraft.

@HankyPanky These are not legal restrictions, they are practical restrictions.

@TylerDurden you were right indeed. Belated +1


text:
Why is the lower deck of the Airbus A380 curved like a single deck airplane?
I recently traveled on the lower deck of an A380 and the section where the side walls of the fuselage and its roof top meet is curved just like any single deck airplane.

Credits: Wikimedia Commons
If there is a deck above me (which there definitely is) then why does the lower deck have to be curved near the top? Shouldn't it be straight on the sides?
Shouldn't it be straight when there is one more deck above it?
I'm sure that it's just the interior that is curved and the external structure is indeed straight but does it serve any important purpose?
Details:
Airline:  Emirates
Aircraft: A380-800
Seat: Row 58
Here is what i saw:

Notice that even the roof is curved, is there a structural reason for that as well? On the side wall one of the rows has an extra covering on it, I'm almost sure that is to cover one of the brackets as mentioned in the answer below but even without that the whole cabin is curved.

Not sure I understand the question - are you asking why is it narrower at the top of the cabin than at the floor? If yes, it’s because the deck is required to fit into essentially a long tube with a blunt but definitely rounded nose... google for an outside view, maybe? Does that help?

What I think he's saying is the vertical curvature of the interior panels doesn't make sense knowing what is above.  I think that is just the way they integrated the side panels into the overhead bin structure.  It is likely that the resulting space that is in the gap between the curved in panel and the gentler curvature of the pressure hull contains ducting or harness runs.

One comparing with the photo in the answer might feel like the curvature in the question photo is not totally explained by the answer photo, but it's clear that the photo in the question is also showing some distortion from the lens and focal length used when taking the picture, so the curvature in the question photo is likely exaggerated.

Maybe instead of distortion from the camera, the picture is near the front of the cabin, where it is still expanding out from the nose cone. In this part of the aircraft, there may not be a full deck above you. I've ridden in the upper cabin in front of an A380 (a one-time thing, alas), and can tell you that is narrows considerably an the front, and the curvature of the walls becomes pronounced. The mid deck extends further forward.

This is a question, and a misconception I also had. The misconception comes from the fact that people forget that there is a cargo hold, and think fuselage should be evenly shared between upper and lower decks. When you unconsciously think that way, you are surprised when you see lower deck walls curve in.

The cabin interior is curved to accommodate, among other things, the brackets holding the upper deck floor beams.
These brackets are a structural feature that transfers the weight of the upper deck to the fuselage with considerably less reinforcement that a straight T-joint. The bracket acts as a small truss element, creating a triangle with the deck and the fuselage that partially turns bending loads into axial ones.
Here is an actual production cutaway, noticeably different from wiki's simplified representation of the A380's cross-section:

It would be possible to only wrap the interior lining around the brackets themselves, not along the whole length. But they're not the only thing there (although others could be rerouted; structure requires testing), and this curve saves a bit of weight, so Airbus curves the whole interior by default. An airline could request something different if they wanted to.

This seems to me to be a much better explanation. Except for those curved brackets, the upper portion of the middle deck walls appear to be decidedly more vertical than the lower portion of the wall which curves in and cut into the leg-room of the victim, er, passenger in the window seat.

Having flown economy on a Lufthansa A380, in a window seat, I do not recall the bottom curvature cutting into my leg room. Rather, I recall a few inches of extra room at tray-table level, compared to a 747, making the window seat more comfortable than is normally the case.

Then I wonder why the bottom floor has none of those brackets. Given that it is designed to hold the full pressure difference between a pressurized cabin and a ventilated cargo bay, the loads on it are substantial.

Are you sure? The cargo hold of the A380 is fully pressurized. It receives air from the main deck, there's no pressure difference. Also, the tubular pillars in the cargo hold serve a similar role, and do it even better than brackets (but taking more space). These are almost universal, though not always tubular.

Since THY981 the floor must be able to withstand the full pressure difference, so there is a pressure difference in a mishap. But you are right about the tubular pillars (made from carbon fiber) - they are essential in strengthening the floor structure.

@PeterKämpf The difference in design with the struts is because due to the curvature of the lower deck and the shapes of ULDs, the outer volume is unusable anyway. This is the traditional design of airliners.

Consider this photo of the cross-section of the A380 and the illustration below. You can see the cargo deck on the bottom, the lower deck (where you sat) in the middle, and the upper deck on the top. All have curved walls because the entire fuselage is curved. Straight walls would waste the space between the walls and the curved sides of the aircraft, and no airline wants unnecessarily wasted space.

A380 cross section, Clem Tillier/Wikimedia Commons
We have a previous question, Why is the fuselage on an airliner circular-shaped?, that addresses why elliptical designs are generally used for modern pressurized jet airliners.

I didn't embed the image myself because it's not freely licensed (and I'd include a photo credit one way or another). Is that a requirement here?

Hmm... Yeah, swapping to the public domain one would probably be better. And, yes, photo credits normally are at least highly preferred here.

I swapped in the public domain illustration (as a sidenote, Clem sure gets around! I usually know him from local rail politics) and kept a link to the photo.

Whilst I believe this answer is correct to a degree, when considering the size of the A380 the curve visible in the cabin is too severe. I always thought the curve was there to give the illusion that the cabin is wider than it is. It's a feature I hate personally as I like to rest my head against the wall.

I agree with @Ben . The photo appears to show much more curvature than this diagram. I would have guessed the photo was from the top deck, not the middle.

@zundi it's from the front cabin on the lower deck, which is narrower at the point you can see it as it's starting to curve into the nose.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are ATC towers built in warzones?
Take Afghanistan as a for instance; do governments (e.g. USAF/RAF) or NATO construct ATC towers?
I'd imagine so, at the air bases, in order to land/takeoff the vast amount of aircraft.
Who controls the sectors where missions are ongoing? How are the different countries' aircraft coordinated and kept apart?

Yes, sometimes control towers or other ATC facilities are constructed to support air traffic control. If, for example an ATC tower is needed (there was none previously or it was destroyed), a mobile replacement is used.

For mission control Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) are used:

But these are quite expensive to fly. If possible, mobile surface based radars are brought in to provide a surveillance picture.
Mobile towers, radars and navigation beacon are not solely used in war situations. In natural disasters they have proven to be useful as well:
FAA sends temporary Air Traffic Control tower to Haiti

See also Mobile Tower System (MOTS): Marketing glossy (PDF), SNC YouTube, SNC news blurb

Misread that last one for a moment as "FAA sends temporary Air Traffic Control tower to Hell".  :-P

The link for that marketing glossy PDF has changed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why would a pilot want to land with less than full flaps?
So for example if I am flying the Boeing 737-800, the FMC gives me three flap settings and approach speeds.
Why would a pilot want to fly with anything less than full flaps where possible?

If flying a GA aircraft and you encounter icing, the recommended practice is to land without extending the flaps unless you are sure the wing surfaces are clear of ice.

Less flaps gives a faster approach speed. In some scenarios, a faster approach speed is better than a slow one, for example:

Strong crosswind
Possible wind shear
One-engine failure

A higher approach speed provides a better stall margin and higher control authority in challenging situations. For example, the Boeing 737 QRH calls for a flaps 15 landing in "One Engine Inoperative" and "Stabilizer Trim Inoperative" scenarios.
In the crosswind scenario, let's assume your approach speed is 100 knots, and the crosswind is 20 knots. The crosswind is therefore 1/5 of the approach speed, and you need a larger crab angle to keep the airplane aligned with the runway. If you increase your approach speed to 120 knots, then the crosswind is only 1/6 of the approach speed, and the crab angle is smaller, making landing easier.

Besides, it's advisable to use little or no flaps when landing in turbulent conditions, since a higher speed ensures a more uniform lift when flying in turbulent air...

@xxavier, what is your source for that?

@acpilot not sure about the aerodynamics part, but it is stated at least in the 737 FCTM: Flap extension in an area of known turbulence should be delayed as long as possible because the airplane can withstand higher gust loads with the flaps up.

@kevin: This is valid for approach, but not landing.

Higher speed with the same flap setting does certainly provide more margin from stall. However, since less flaps mean higher stall speed, is it really true with less flaps?

@Jan Hudec   But you are flying slower whith lowered flaps, and when flying at a small airspeed an in turbulent conditions, it may happen that you get a gust from behind, a strong gust, and the lift of one wing, or both, may thus fall to zero for a small, but critical span of time. Once, I crashed because of that. It wasn't a stall, but a sudden loss of altitude, while on final...

@xxavier, but is the difference in flight speed bigger than the difference in stall speeds between the configuration? I suppose it might be (and if you are using the standard rule that $V_{ref} = 1.3 V_s$, it will be, slightly), but using less flaps does not imply it. And it seems to me it would be better to just increase $V_{ref}$, but still deploy full flaps as then the speed difference would be even bigger. Why isn't it?

@Jan Hudec Well, I'm not talking about stall, that is a different thing. In the case of an (strong enough) 'gust from behind' the flow may simply disappear, as the magnitude of the relative wind 'seen' by the wing 'sees' drops to zero for a short time. Of course, the way to reduce this danger is to fly the final at a higher speed, and that can be done, within limits, with or without flaps, but it's easier without flaps...

@xxavier, the gust from behind will get you in trouble if it reduces your speed below stall (no need for all the way down to zero; that would be very strong gust). So it still makes sense to have the flaps out to reduce the stall speed (and keep the extra speed for gusts).

@Jan Hudec  No, a 'gust from behind' does not cause an stall, because the stall takes place only when the angle of attack gets over a critical value and the flow detaches from the wind. The 'gust from behind' lowers the relative airspeed, and thus lowers the lift, but does not affect the AoA, so there is no flow detachment at all, no stall...

@xxavier: Does the exact terminology matter more than the fact that in either case the airplane is likely to impact the ground in an uncontrolled fashion?

folks: continue in chat is recommended.

@xxavier, indirectly it does, because pilot will try to correct the change in flight path. But I see the total speed does make a difference then, because at higher speed, the change in flight path will be smaller.

@jamesqf, this is about correct understanding of the physics. We were not talking about the same thing in different terms. Exact terminology matters as far as necessary to understand it—in physics you usually do have to be precise.

@Jan Hudec  Yes, if the pilot pulls the stick under those conditions, the wing will stall. But a gust is a very short-lived event, and there's no time for a reaction for the pilot...

@Jan Hudec: It's about physics?  My mistake: I thought it was about how to land your airplane without hitting the ground hard enough to cause major damage.

@jamesqf, the question is about how to land the plane, but the discussion is about the physics explaining why it has to be done in that particular way.

In strong crosswind-conditions you want to consider not using full flaps to give the wind less attack area. So you have a slightly higher approach and landing speed, but you aren't blown as much to the side as you would be with full flaps.
In a Cessna 172, for example, this is normal practice.

Well, if you're landing in a crosswind of X m/s, you'll be 'blown' sideways at exactly X m/s, no matter the landing speed you have... Unless you crab, of course, in which case you won't be blown sideways at all. The crab angle with flaps will be higher, but that's the only difference. And when you align with the runway, at the last moment, you'll be blown sideways at X m/s, irrespective of your speed at that moment...

@xxavier No, you won't be instantly be blown sideways at X m/s "at the last moment", because the plane has mass, and therefore takes time to accelerate sideways up to X m/s.

@alephzero. Yes, it takes precisely that small time, that is the same at any landing speed...

In a Cessna 150 for example, you want to be on the downwind going 70-75 knots, 65-70 on base, and 55-65 on final, depending on wind gusts. A pilot in a small plane might tend to put in 10° of flaps on the downwind, 10° on base, and adjustments or anything extra on final to allow them to get their speed to where they need it. It is nice to be in the middle where you can add or remove some if necessary (assuming you're not too close to the ground).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why are older airplanes still in use?
It is normal to see older planes (20+ years) quite frequently. In fact, a few months ago I saw a plane over 50 years old (not in a museum but on a runway, about to take off).
Comparing to cars, there are not many cars on the road which are older than 10-15 years.
What are the reasons for this besides the following?

Airplanes are very expensive. A new 172 would be over USD 300,000, and a thirty year old can be around \$50k or less.
Airplanes follow a very strict maintenance schedule and are inspected thoroughly (ideally speaking). Hence their life is increased.
Pilots are very well trained compared to car drivers, so they know a lot more of what they are doing. Hence they are more aware of the condition of the plane.
Cars crash a lot more often than airplanes.

It appears that this holds true for both general and commercial aviation.

There are two aspects to the question: why are they still in use (vs. being scrapped in favor of new airplanes) and why do they last so long (vs. falling apart as a car would). But I think you already nailed most of the key points to answering both aspects in your own question!

a well maintained car can last for a century (just look at all of the oldtimers in working condition), a well maintained airliner reaches EOL after 2-3 decades (IIRC)

The biggest reason that I've read is #2

"[T]here are not many cars on the road which are older than 10-15 years." That depends on where you are looking. :)

@GlenTheUdderboat I agree. That's why I added the USA tag but others didn't like it. In developing countries mostly, a car's life is increased a lot because of less expensive labor and easy availability of spare parts.

I think 1 and 2 are the most important answers to this, especially when combined with the fact that there has been relatively little improvement in GA airframe design since the 1960s. Personally, I've only flown 3 aircraft so far and the newest one was built in 1974. The one I've flown the most was from 1970 and the other was built in the 60s. These are also very good choices for flight training because if a student messes up and wrecks the plane, you're not out nearly as much money (thus, the insurance is much cheaper.)

As for commercial aviation, it's a pretty different story. There are few, if any, 50-year-old airframes flying scheduled passenger service in the U.S. The U.S. passenger fleet's average age is actually only around 10-15 years right now. The oldest ones still flying on most major U.S. airlines are from the 80s and most of those are in the process of being replaced. Of course, it's not uncommon for aircraft retired from these fleets to go on to fly in some developing nation for many more years.

Seems to me that even in the US, there are many cars over 15 years old being used. There would be many more if they weren't made intentionally to fall apart to make us need to replace them.

@Dronz ... that and if they don't charge an arm and a leg for repairs.

Besides the main points you mentioned, I can think of a couple things, the first is sort of related to your point #1.
Airplanes are designed to be easy to service. Cars are less so.
Cars only have a few very expensive parts, mainly the drivetrain (engine and transmission). If either of those needs to be replaced in an older car, it can easily cost more than the car is worth.
Airplanes are much more complex, and have a larger number of expensive components. The engines of most airliners are designed to be removed relatively quickly. Although the engines tend to be the most expensive part, replacing an engine is nowhere near the total cost of the airplane, and there is generally a good pool of engines out there for parts and replacement (just look at how many JT8D engines are still in service).
In GA aircraft, it is easier for a repair to cost more than the airplane is worth. However, the more comprehensive maintenance required on aircraft means that this kind of repair is less likely to be needed. Also, while its usually easy to go out and replace a broken car with a comparable new or used one, the aircraft market isn't as large. New aircraft tend to be much more expensive, and the used market is more limited.
Another reason is that airplanes can have more unique qualities than cars. For example, there are original 737s flying in Canada because they are able to operate from gravel runways. There are just more combinations of sizes and capabilities in airplanes than with cars. Many times, it is only economical to replace those aircraft (both for the builder and the buyer) in very long cycles.

"If either of those needs to be replaced, it can easily cost more than an older car is worth." Keep in mind, replacing things on even a small GA aircraft can easily cost more than an older car as well -- probably more than a new car too, if you're unlucky -- so it relates more to the value of the airplane than the cost of the repair :)

If you looked at light twin prices the last few years, you were basically buying the engines and the avionics and getting the airframe for free.  :-)

I own a 182 from 1976 and it looks brand new.  It's a common misconception that planes don't oxidize; they do.  Aluminum does have it's own form of "rust".  Airplanes that are on the coasts usually have a rust preventative applied frequently to prevent oxidizing.
When you have a problem with a car you take it to the shop.  This problem could have occurred in your driveway or on the road somewhere away from home.  My point here is that cars rarely see service unless there's an issue.
For airplanes, they need to have a yearly "annual".  In which a licensed A&P will go over the plane and recommend fixes before the plane is deemed flight worthy again.  Also, an airplane engine has an end of life.  This end of life is somewhat debated in the pilot community as it seems from data collected on accident statistics that many engine failures increase shortly after an engine has been rebuilt. This is in addition to any squawks I may have throughout the year.  If something doesn't sound or feel right, it gets looked at.  I don't wait for a "breakdown".
I trust my airplane and her engine 100%.

Good answer. Especially interesting that airplanes have a rust preventative applied - I wonder if this is in conjunction with salt usage as well? Also: in some countries (eg New Zealand) they have compulsory car inspections every six months (warrants of fitness). Cars last longer there, but still not as long as planes...

most countries require cars to be inspected yearly as well but no where near as thorough as for planes

@Peter The stuff used for ice-prevention on runways is much less corrosive than the calcium chloride/sodium-chloride used in most road salting/sanding operations (I think we talked about it on the site somewhere, if I recall correctly it's usually potassium acetate or similar).

and quite a few car manufacturers give special perks for people who have their cars serviced regularly at a dealership (e.g. free towing and emergency repair service, think AA Roadwatch equivalent, free replacement of liquids and light bulbs, etc.).

@ratchetfreak: Most countries do require cars to be inspected regularly, but I am not sure how every year is usual. Here it is after 5 years, then another 5 and afterwards every 2 years.

@JanHudec in Belgium with a towing hook you need yearly inspection.

The answers so far give many valid reasons, but two more are missing:

In GA aircraft, progress has stopped in airframe design somewhere in the Sixties. Only the home build community has really improved the designs, and the avionics have tremendously improved, but commercial GA aircraft have still the same structure and engines. Since the number of active pilots has dropped, the number of old airplanes makes new designs (again, outside of the home build area) commercially questionable, and their performance would be comparable to the ones from 50 years ago.
Grandfather rules: The rules which have been in force at the time the aircraft was built are still valid for that particular aircraft, which makes compliance much easier than with newly built aircraft. All certification authorities all over the world have only added to the body of regulations in the last decades. If you think of it, this makes sense (for them): There is no incentive to remove old and by now superfluous rules, and new rules are issued if only to show that the bureaucracy is active and needed.

Whenever I read some old aircraft magazine from the Fifties or Sixties, I find the ads most striking for showing modern-looking planes alongside really outdated automobiles. The aircraft development in General Aviation has stopped a long time ago, whereas the car industry still needs to entice it's customers with regular updates.

Diamomd has been pretty innovative.

@Koyovis There was a renaissance in aircraft design about 20-30 years ago, inspired by kit aircraft beginning to use composites. Diamond and CIrrus and Lancair/Columbia/Cessna 300-350-400 are each composite aircraft with advanced avionics, FADEC engine management, and clean sheet design. Unfortunately, the market for new airplanes is rather small and the cost to develop new designs is high, so we haven’t seen much innovation in this area. Beech, Cessna, Mooney, and Piper are shielded from lawsuits by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 so they have lower risk by making old designs.

@Koyovis: Yes, Diamond is an exception to the rule. It is headed by the Mitsubishi car importer for Austria (hence the name) and employs a very clever chief designer who has spent many years in the Akaflieg in Braunschweig, designing, building and flying high performance gliders. They are not only innovative in airframes, but also in engines, having certified a Diesel engine for aviation use.

Do planes from the 60s ride the same as new planes though? What about noise and vibration and such?

@TimHallman Old designs sometimes have quirks and outright design deficiencies which make them dangerous in inexperienced hands. One example might be a weakness in the Beech Bonanza spar which, while fulfilling registration requirements, makes overspeed events dangerous. It was never fixed in order to avoid admitting guilt. Had Beech recalled the planes and fixed the issue, ambulance chasing lawyers would be all over them. Noise and vibration are airplane-specific and I would not generalize that new planes are better in that respect.

I'll challenge your assumption that there aren't many cars on the road more than 10-15 years old, since my two are 15 and 27 years old, and cars this age are far from rare hereabouts (western US).  Of course this can vary: if you live in the US northeast, where they make a practice of spreading corrosive chemicals on the roads, your car's body might fall off in a few years.
I'd add two reasons to yours:

There was a period of a couple of decades where few if any new GA airplanes were built, for fear of liability.
Planned obsolescence: auto makers come out with "new" (that is, different sheet metal) models every year, so that the gullible will buy the new designs in order to follow fashion.  That's hard for aircraft makers to do when the basic shape of the plane is dictated by aerodynamics rather than style.

The much higher price for a new plane only makes it harder still.

Thanks for the answer. Can you please add some reference for your 1st reason. And for the 2nd reason, cars are very aerodynamic too. It's a huge research project to make less air resistant for a smoother and better travel experience. Regarding airplanes, there were and are many different designs in wings and tails. Flying wings and tailless should also be considered.

@Farhan cars are indeed affected by aerodynamics, but not nearly as much as airplanes. Vehicles can get away with ignoring that a lot more.

According to people who study such things, the average age of a car in the U.S. is only 11.4 years. General aviation aircraft are indeed often much older than that. It's perfectly normal for Cessnas and Pipers from the 60s and 70s to still be flying regularly. Airliners, on the other hand, do have an average age pretty close to those of cars, at least in the U.S. The average fleet age for most major U.S. airlines is in the 10-15 year range.

@Farhan: On #1, I can't give you a better reference than having lived & flown those years, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act.  For auto age, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles and note that since the number of autos keeps increasing, that lowers the average.  For #2, few autos pay much attention to actual aerodynamics (as opposed to "looks fast" styling).  Look at any pickup, SUV, those small "dorm room on wheels" things that are popular these days...

Airliners must make money, and a LARGE part of their operating cost is fuel. B707s and DC-8s were designed when crude oil was $10 a barrel; so it's obvious why they are now out of the picture. (DC-8s were re-engined as "Super 70s" in the 1980s with modern CFM56s, giving lower fuel burn and longer range).
But visit an antique fly-in; planes from the 20s-30s-40s can be seen, showing lots of TLC, better than new! You might see a few antique cars at the same event.

There are so many standards regulating the inspection and maintenance of aircraft, that when a plane is legally in the air, it is most probably safe enough to be there.
For airline operators, efficiency is at the order of the day. You will thus find that even if some 'old' airliners are still being operated, they are very different from the day they first entered into service. The engines are probably much newer and much more efficient models and avionics is also always replaced with the latest affordable technology.
Old planes evoke nostalgia and are very fun to fly for leisure. Due to all the regulating standards it is great that some of these old planes can still be flown.

I'd like to add a small point not mentioned in the good answers already here.
Piloting a different aircraft model needs training, much more so than driving a different car model.
I don't know to which extent regulation demands formal retraining for general aviation. But for sure there is a real temporary cost in safety and comfort when switching with insufficient training. One could get killed by flawlessly doing exactly what would have worked in the other model.

Speaking from a GA perspective, there is nothing stopping me from climbing into any single engine aircraft (save for some high performance or pressurized ones) and taking to the air without extra training because they all fall under my ASEL license/rating.


text:
Do helicopters fly a standard pattern before landing?
How do helicopters approach and land at an airport? Do they use the same general traffic pattern as fixed-wing aircraft?

I live about two miles from Davison Army Airfield, and I can state that every Army helicopter that takes off or lands there does so in a way that is completely the same as the few fixed wings planes. They taxi at what looks like 40-80 feet and follow the taxiways, then taking off from the end of the runway, they gain altitude just like a regular plane. Every time.

taxiing at 40-80 feet is called an 'air taxi'. Its a fairly uncommon maneuver, except in certain circumstances, and quite fast. in the R44 its 60 feet and 60 knots. do these copters have wheels?

@CGCampbell if I'm not mistaken, military procedures are entirely separate from civilian ones, in the US at least.

The FAA AIM, in 4-3-17 and the Air Traffic Controller Handbook, Section 11, explains VFR helicopter operations at controlled airports. The procedure will depend on the airport and the current traffic.

Insofar as possible, helicopter operations will be instructed to avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft to minimize overall delays; however, there will be many situations where faster/larger helicopters may be integrated with fixed-wing aircraft for the benefit of all concerned.

Helicopters may operate from a designated helicopter landing area. The tower is responsible for separating them from other traffic. The helicopter can fly a much closer pattern than other aircraft, and may stay on the other side of the runway from the typical pattern. They may also operate straight in/out of the landing area, depending on wind and traffic.
They may also be cleared to take off or land in a "nonmovement" area that is not specifically designated for that activity, which could be a ramp at the airport or a location off-airport. This will be up to the tower to provide clearance and the pilot to execute safely.
Helicopters can also operate similarly to fixed-wing aircraft, taking off and landing using a runway, and following taxiways. Wheeled helicopters taxi on the ground. Otherwise, helicopters may either hover taxi, where they fly in ground effect at low speed, or air taxi, where they will fly out of ground effect up to 100 ft AGL and up to 60 kts, as directly as possible to the next point on the field, avoiding obstacles as needed.
Like ratchet freak says, they will generally come in horizontally while descending, flying into the wind, and then come into hover, where they will then be instructed by the tower to taxi to wherever they are going on the field.
Some airports, like in this photo of "spot Charlie" on Taxiway Zulu at Hayward Aiport, may have marked spots on the taxiways or non-movement areas for helicopter operations. In this case, students practicing landings and autorotations will be instructed: "Clear to land, Spot Charlie" to keep them off of the main runway 28L, while in left traffic on the opposite side of the runway of the smaller 28R.

As with any aircraft, the final authority for safety is the pilot, and they must be aware of their limitations and the conditions around them.
At non-towered airports, the procedures can be similar. The pilot should take the wind direction and traffic into account, and announce their intentions on the appropriate frequency.

Woah, you can taxi a helicopter? Do they have wheels and some sort of horizontal propulsion mechanism? Or is it just that the helicopter taxis above the taxiway?

@raptortech97 those with wheels are usually pushed, with skids you need to get into a hover or on a dolly to move it over a few feet

@raptortech97 Many helicopters with wheels can taxi. The "horizantal propulsion mechanism" is just the same as in the air - tilt the disc forward with the cyclic. First one I found - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgkeZaCGhC0

@ratchetfreak you can move a copter on skids a few feet in any direction, or yaw them while on the skids, without going up into a full hover. just get it light on the skids with the collective, and use the cyclic and pedals to move around a bit. usually this is used for adjusting a bad parking job :)

They won't come in at altitude and then descend vertically until touch down.
The major reason is that rapid vertical descent has the danger that the rotor could end up in its own downwash and lose most of its lift. You don't want that.
So what they will do is come in horizontally while descending until over the landing site only a few dozen feet from the ground.
Airports generally have specific landing pads for VTOL capable aircraft (like helicopters), so they will direct them there instead of the runway.

every maneuver has the possibility of danger. the proper procedure for a steep approach in a helicopter is land into the wind, keep the VSI below 300fpm, and maintain enough airspeed to maintain translational lift (which includes the headwind).

Depends on the airport.  When I fly to KBUR I was almost always asked to fly standard patterns and land on runways before taxiing out.
Some other airports wants you to go directly on pads, and sometimes has a published procedure to land there like KLGB
Sometimes they ask you to land on a taxiway, and then say "taxi parking," which means you can do whatever you want from there.

Only adding this answer as my experience is a little different. this is based on my Canadian experience.
At Controlled airfields, as a pilot you can request anything you want, as long as it complies with things like noise abatement etc, the limiting factor is ATC and how much they trust you to not land on trucks, or wander in front of the landing 737. at the airfield I trained, with lots of helicopters, [15+ trainers plus 4-5 other company's] there are published helicopter approaches and a dedicate circuit, the tower knew what we could do, and would approve almost anything you wanted, many of the other towers were less familiar and if there was traffic would sometimes make you join the pattern, but if you asked nicely sometimes they would let you cut in line if you stayed away from the active.
Uncontrolled airfields, it is a judgment call depending on if theirs other traffic and where you need to land. generally I would fly a much tighter circuit than the fixed wing guys, as my cruse and there landing speeds are close.


text:
Is it even remotely feasible to turnback a single engine aircraft with an engine failure?
Note before reading further that I'm asking this question purely on theoretical grounds, though you are more than welcome to talk about practical aspects as well.
Now, my question. It's common knowledge amongst many pilots that turnbacks are one of the least safe methods of attempting to survive an engine failure in a single engine aircraft. However, is it actually possible at all to turnback an aircraft to return to the airport perimeter or the runway? How much of it is simply pilot error in executing a possible manoeuvre, as opposed to pilots thinking that they can pull something off that is just impossible, no matter what?
For the purposes of this question, we shall assume the following:

there is only one runway, so a reciprocal turn is required (we shall assume 210 degrees)
the aircraft has a flaps up stall speed at MTOW of 75 knots
the aircraft has a best glide ratio of 1:12 at 100 knots

Alternatively, if you have any other information that is more akin to a real aircraft, you can use that in lieu of this information.
Sources or an explanation as to why this it is or isn't impossible would be appreciated in your answers.

This question is too general unless you include what altitude you're at when the engine fails, how many degrees you need to turn back to in order to line up with a runway (which could be a different one than you took off from), and how many feet you will lose in turning that far.

@mah: well, if I knew exactly how much the aircraft would descend, then there'd be no point in asking, but does that help a bit? ;)

It certainly qualifies things better! I'm not comfortable with posting an actual answer on the matter (people's lives being on the table and whatnot). In a safety seminar though, I was taught that it's a good idea to take your aircraft to 1500', pull power and turn 180 to get an idea of how much AGL you lose and how far you have to travel to get lined up... if you're comfortable with that in your aircraft you should be able to apply safety padding and make a good decision about turn back (rare on takeoff, maybe never) or land straight ahead.

Anecdotal: When doing my PPL training in SoCal another trainee had an engine failure on takeoff, at roughly 400ft. The instructor took control and turned back and landed with a tailwind. So impossible: no. Recommended: Probably also no. I'd still opt for a safe patch in front than attempt a turnback!

Why do you say "210 degrees" is required?

@SSumner: because to return the the runway heading, you need to turn more than 180 degrees.

@Qantas94Heavy - why is that? Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it doesn't make sense to me

@SSumner: while turning back, you're going to be slightly to the side of the extended runway centreline (you'd just be parallel). To reach the runway itself, you need to turn more than 180 degrees to get back to the centreline before you reach the actual runway.

Ahhh. Duh. That makes sense now, thanks.

which is why we always turn into the prevailing crosswind.

Nobody mentioned the theory so far, so I'll try to fill in.
Disclaimer: The below calculations and estimates are based on what I know about the physics involved. I don't know whether they are actually mentioned in pilot operating handbook of any aircraft.
To successfully turn back, you after climbing at best climb rate, when the engine quits you push down, execute the turn at suitably slightly higher speed to maintain the angle of attack and glide back.
The rate of climb is thrust/weight minus lift/drag, the glide rate is just lift/drag.
Glide rate in the turn is higher by factor depending on the bank angle (coordinated turn; uncoordinated turn is always worse). Calculating best glide rate turn leads to bank angle should be around 45°, speed should be about 19% higher to maintain best glide angle of attack and about 41% higher rate of descent than in straight glide. According to the article linked in the other answer, flying at just above stall speed (which is also 19% higher than in straight flight) should be better due to tighter circle despite worse lift/drag ratio.
The radius, and thus length of the turn of course depends on speed. At 110 knots (true speed, not indicated) the turn will take about 1.4 nm, at 160 knots it will already be about 3 nm. At 60 knots it will only be 0.42 nm. Since you need to maintain indicated speed, the true speed will slightly increase with altitude.
So for the turn back to be possible the plane needs to have sufficient power to climb faster than it will descend in the glide and you have to be high enough to allow for the extra gliding distance (which due to higher rate of descent corresponds to even longer straight glide).
All or most planes will have sufficient thrust at sea level to climb faster than they descend in glide. But since thrust decreases with altitude and temperature, if your departure point is high or warm enough, it may no longer be the case.
Even if the thrust is sufficient, the distance between climb and glide profile starts at zero on lift-off and will only become sufficient to cover the extra miles in the turn above some altitude. The altitude depends on many factors mentioned above.
It's not reasonable to try it without knowing what altitude is needed for it at current conditions.

0.42 nm half turn very closely matches what was observed in 172 "survivable" half turn altitude of (disclaimers!) around 300 - 350 feet.  Preferred, with safety margin, would be around 500 feet AGL.

It is "remotely feasible", you can watch this pilot story from AOPA about someone who did it. But, that doesn't mean that you or anyone else will be successful in attempting it because of the large number of variables that you mentioned. And one successful execution does not mean that it's a good idea in general.
One suggestion I've read several times is to try it yourself in the air: set the 'ground' at say 3000agl then try it out with whatever aircraft configurations you like and see what the results are. But even if you pull it off in those conditions, will you do it again in a real situation with the added stress and possibly additional weight (passengers, luggage) in the aircraft?
All in all, based on everything I've read and been told, it's called the impossible turn for a reason. My training anecdote from an instructor was a local pilot flying with his son who tried it, made the turn but stalled out, crashed on the runway, made it out of the aircraft but then had to watch his son burn to death in the wreckage. That sort of story makes a landing in a field or even a street seem very attractive, which was exactly my instructor's intention.

There's a very good discussion of the "impossible turn" at the following link:
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html
It goes into an AIAA study using a flight simulator with new and experienced pilots and it shows that while it's technically feasible, pilots need to train for it and be very strict with their bank angle.
There's a lot of detail in the link that's hard to summarize, but the gist is that most untrained pilots fail and crash in a simulator, so unless you've practiced it, it's not worth trying.

Probably one of the best comments in that link is: "The final element of CAAPP is Planning. Before you pull onto the runway and apply takeoff power you should have planned what you are going to do if the engine quits." Flying isn't about reacting to issues. It's about planning for them before they happen, in case they do.

The reason that we are trained to simply not turn back is the same reason we memorize and drill the instant action items in emergency checklists. When the stuff hits the fan, you don't have time to think about all the possibilities of your actions. Your initial response time is critical to a successful outcome. Especially when you're already low and slow. And in an actual emergency situation, your chances of responding correctly are severely diminished if you have to think about what you're doing. You should KNOW what you'll do before it happens.
$V_1$ cuts in a multi-engine aircraft are a great example of making an instant decision that may seem counter-intuitive. If an engine stops before you hit $V_1$ speed, you abort. Otherwise, you know for a fact that once you reach $V_1$ speed, you will continue that takeoff, even if one of your engines fail. You'll deal with the emergency in the air, where it's safer and you have time to run the drill. Turning back to the airport falls into the same category. Turning back may seem attractive, but if you're still in takeoff phase, your chances of success are much smaller if you try a tight bank in a slow, low aircraft.

Interesting question, especially as I'm learning to fly just now.
My pre-flight abort briefing with the CFI is that if we lose power below 700ft AGL, we're going to land on a suitable field 20° off the nose (after pitching for best-glide speed, 68kts in our plane). However, above 700ft AGL, I'm being taught that we are going to pitch for best-glide and turn to the airport and land at "any available runway". The plane we're flying is C172S and we have never tried this at the airport, but in the air we did 360° turns with idle engine and 68 kts with only about ~300ft lost altitude. I was truly surprised about that.
I'm still uneasy about returning to the field, though.

For my local airport, 700 ft AGL is roughly traffic pattern altitude. (Traffic pattern altitude there is actually 715 ft AGL if you nail it exactly.) At one point, my instructor pulled the throttle to idle around the threshold on the downwind leg and basically said "oops, the engine died, now what do you do?". I turned an immediate base and we got down just fine. Climbout is obviously not exactly the same, but 700 ft of altitude in the traffic pattern is plenty of altitude to get down in a controlled manner such that the humans as well as the airplane itself are all in reusable condition.

@Marko I'd have to ask what your rpm setting was and what type of turn did you do?  Altitude loss for a full 360 is more like 700 feet with no power and landing downwind will give you much higher ground speed.  I would specifically go over this with your instructor.  Number 1 is to survive the landing.  Engine out very low please fly straight ahead into the wind.  300 feet is slightly more than 4 tractor trailers lined up.  In a 172 that will give you around 1/2 mile to glide straight, less if you are turning.

Something to think about, landing from 1000 feet AGL is only a half turn, usually into the wind.  A higher idle rpm setting will give a nice flat "power on" approach to landing, but don't be fooled!  This is not "engine out".  If idle is high, you could add in some flap to make it more realistic, but practice at a safe altitude.

It is not only remotely feasible it is very possible. One of our club members departed a sea-level airport and reached 6,500 feet altituce when the engine quit.  He turned back and landed on the runway he departed from.  He actually landed long and over-ran the runway.
Now try that at 500 feet above runway altitude and you won't be able to make it.
So where you are when the fan stops is important, as is your skill level.  Get with a CFI and practice this!

Your CFI should definitely be going over this in training. My guideline was always along the lines of if you are in the takeoff phase (low and still in the pattern) it's easy: don't try to turn back. If you're in the departure phase (climbing out of the pattern) then lower the nose, first and foremost, and make the decision. The important thing is to FLY THE AIRPLANE.

That said, I've never had a full power loss on takeoff. I have had a partial power loss on takeoff as I was climbing out. I didn't have enough power to keep climbing without getting very slow, but I wasn't losing altitude when level. I was high enough to clear the trees, so I announced what I was doing over the radio and circled around the pattern at a couple of hundred feet. Made a semi-normal landing and taxied straight to the maintenance hangar. It wasn't much fun.

Yes, trying this from 6,500 ft. is quite different than 500 ft. My instructor pulled the engine to idle at about 600 ft and told me to attempt the turn-back just so that I'd have a feel for what happens. In case you're wondering, what happens is that the plane slams into the side of the hill on which the runway sits. Needless to say, once that outcome became apparent, full power was applied and I climbed back up to the pattern.

As far as engine failure 'in the patten,' though, landing from the downwind without power is quite possible in the Cherokee that I've been flying. One of the first few times I practiced this, I actually didn't descend quickly enough and had to go around to keep from overshooting the runway.

The answer is yes and no. If at a sufficient altitude, a return to the airport is feasible. If a suitable landing spot is in front of you that is the best option. You MUST know your aircrafts limitations and your skill level to determine when it is safe to return to the airport.

Welcome to aviation! I think you meant to say "If at a sufficient altitude..."? Any more specific details you can give about how to determine how much altitude is required would be great, although your overall point about limitations is certainly correct.

@Pondlife - A safe altitude would be individual to the plane you are flying and the conditions you are flying in. There's really no hard and fast rule. That's why the "land ahead" guideline exists.
Too often, what happens is that the pilot will panic and try to bank the aircraft around in a situation where it's already nose-high and losing airspeed. That's a very quick way to demonstrate the stall/spin recovery methods that I talked about in the other post. :-|

There are two factors which none of the answers above capture:

Don't stall/spin the airplane. This is the #1 risk factor.
Where are you relative to the end of the runway when the engine fails?  If you have taken off in the first 500 ft of a 5,000 foot runway, and you lose a lot of altitude in a successful 180-210 degree turn, you will still be able to land on the last 4,500 ft, and maybe even need to slip if there's a strong enough tailwind. If its a short runway with an overrun or airport protection area, you might land short but without any substantial obstacles. If you took off from a sandbar in a river, you will probably find yourself wheels down, but in the drink.

I have an older friend who flew single-engined de Havilland Vampire jets in the Air Force in the 1950's. He told me once that they used to practise engine failures after take off by pulling vertically into an Immelmann, then landing on the runway they'd just taken off from in the opposite direction.
Thinking about it now, they'd be landing downwind which would add to the fun and games.
Anyway assuming it's true (and I have no reason to doubt him), it's pretty damn cool!

Apart from the actual physical feasibility discussed in other answers the main risk is a stall situation during the turn.
Winch-launching of gliders is a situation where "power loss" in form of a rope-break is quite common and the reaction to this situation is one of the most importand drills during your training.
Apart from the initial speed and AoA recovery, the decision to turn or not is rather crucial, but when turning you have to take utter care of your speed to avoid stalling. This may be even worse for motor pilots, because you might want to keep banking with a "normal" horizon reference as usual, which can be a bad idea if you are lacking the necessary power to sustain that.

Turning back is also trained for with tow-launched gliders.  It's been too long for me to recall, but the threshold for a safe turn-back on rope break was quite low (200 AGL?).  The keys to success were immediate response, a fairly aggressive bank angle, and keeping airspeed up to keep the AoA in limits.

@WayneConrad not sure if that is part of the curriculum in Germany (it wasn´t for me). Do you mean 200ft or 200m AGL? In any case, airspeed equals life (does not really translate so well).

200 ft AGL, but that's just a guess.  My glider training was a long time ago.

with zero wind: land ahead below 200ft, 200-500 turn back, 500+ make an abbreviated pattern. add 50ft for each 10kts of headwind. remember, if there is a crosswind, TURN INTO THE WIND.

I've seen gliders practice "rope breaks" from well below 200', turning back to land on the runway, downwind.

@quietflyer sure thing, this is entirely feasible, terrain, wind and runway setup permitting.

I would check tow speed vs glider Vbg.  Higher speed might give them "more to work with" along with a glide ratio befitting their name.


text:
Why is most aircraft livery painted, rather than vinyled?
I just watched a recent AVWeb YouTube video about vinyl decals. In it the owner of Plane Decal says compared to paint, vinyl offers:

a more flexible choice of designs
a cheaper solution - a GA aircraft costing \$5,500 vs \$20-25k.
a quicker install - 6.5 hours vs 6 weeks

Are these assertions correct? It leaves me wondering why aircraft are painted at all if this is the case? What are the cons?
I'm interested in both GA and commercial perspectives, since Bud mentions they've outfitted both.
Here's the video for those who are interested:

The temperature range of where the decal will operate will be an issue. As will the issue if a portion starts peeling off from the wind.

@ratchetfreak The guy from Plane Vinyl (Bud) says it'll last "forever" with correct cleaning. He also says to choose a decal firm with specific experience in aviation, not just any decal company. I guess this is part of the reason why.

Seems like deice chemicals would have a lot to do with this as well.

We used a vinyl decal on our gulfstream GV to place one of the company's founders name below the pilot's side window in 3 inch letters. Lots of edge area, and we were worried it would peel. But it lasted for years. We bought 3 decals initially thinking we'd have to replace it periodically. However, the first one lasted as long as we owned the aircraft and we only peeled it off when we sold the aircraft. It was in perfect condition. We never had to replace it. That's flying at 45,000 feet in -75F or thrashing rain on many approaches. Good stuff.

related question (the part about special livery)

It doesn't help that vinyl often looks super tacky. That Glasair in the screenshot is hideous.

I would think the hideousness of a particular design is more dependent on the designer/owner than the fact that it's paint or vinyl, @egid. The Glasair would look just as tacky (to you) if it was painted, too.

Umm.. what happens if you lease it out for six months?

@egid - it looks bent, like a gravitationally-challenged pilot has been dropped in it from a great height.

Changing the status quo always takes time. Aircraft have been painted almost since the dawn of flight (and the very earliest aircraft were still doped to stretch the fabric over the skeleton). That is reason in itself for antique and historical aircraft and their replicas to be painted instead of vinyled.
In addition, most liveries come factory-installed right alongside the host of other options available. Most high-end private jets as well as the big commercial ones are built-to-order inside and out, including the customer's brand livery. That livery, much like the factory color of a car, often stays with the plane its entire life, with only routine touch-ups performed as a normal part of maintenance. Refitting a fleet with new livery and/or interiors, until very recently, wasn't done often; Southwest's "Canyon Blue" livery change was noteworthy, as was AA's fleet rebadging, and neither airline bothered repainting planes that are on the way out anyway; the aging Super 80s as well as the 757s and some 767s are still in classic AA silver livery and will be that way until they're retired from the fleet.
So, aftermarket vinyl livery's market share is already somewhat limited; people buying a new jet will get their livery applied at the factory, and people buying a used jet and wanting the livery changed significantly are in for quite an expense even if they choose vinyl; the old painted livery will usually have to be removed and the plane refinished in a new base coat before the new vinyl decals are applied.
I would also venture, having seen aftermarket vinyl applied to other vehicles, that even if the utmost care is taken in applying it, the decal is always going to look like a decal, and it may not age well even with a meticulously-maintained airframe. If you're paying \$65 million (base price) for a G650, \$25,000 (or even \$100,000) for custom livery is a drop in the bucket.
Now, your 172 or Piper Cherokee sport pilot might be very interested in personalizing his plane on this kind of budget, as would an aircraft club of part-owners, or your self-employed commercial pilot like a crop duster or charter bush pilot. Vinyl on small planes thus makes more sense; however, it's still a significant expense, and a purely cosmetic one, so it's still rare to see a plane's factory paint scheme change significantly aftermarket, except for niche uses like aerobatics and stunt flying.


text:
Helicopters with landing skids, no wheels; How are they taken in and out of a hangar?
I'm sure many helicopters also need/use Hangars frequently. How do you take them to a hangar and take them out of it without wheels?
Specially when they have to be taken indoors for some maintenance work on them. Are there any special forklifts/carts used for ground handling of helicopters that do not use wheels and need to be moved without actually flying?

They are placed on movable skids or carts, or have wheels that can be attached to the skids so they can be rolled.

Silly me, that term looks like such an easy find when i think of it now. Thanks!

@RonBeyer: You grabbed a strange thing with your query! Seems to be supersonic, re. the cooled blades

@mins Looks like parking control is trying a new tactic

Many have wheels that attach to the skids

@simon how to attach them when needed? I think that would require some sort of jack right?

@mins I saw that and immediately thought "I want one"... Guess I'll never grow up.

@HankyPanky Here is a video that shows how wheels can be attached: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2mUQ7Oonhs

Basically, you put wheels on the skid and tow them.
In some cases, towing wheels are attached to the skids (which usually have sleeves in them for mounting), and a tow bar is attached to the front (one or two sets of wheels may be attached to the skids), which is then towed by a vehicle.

Image from incrediblediary.com
There are also specialised tow carts available for helicopters, which basically grip the skids (usually in a couple of places on either side) and lift them up, after which the helicopter can be moved by the operator by controlling the cart.

Image from hasmak.com


text:
What's going on in this "confusing" TCAS Resolution Advisory video clip?
There's a clip on YouTube from a pilot of a 747-200 whose TCAS system issues a "confusing" RA:

What exactly is happening here?
For those who can't watch the video right now, here are some frames:

The TCAS responded to the other aircraft not following the flight profile that was observed earlier. If you watch closely, you will see that the other aircraft started to descend as well after the first resolution advisory is given.
The onboard TCAS responds by issuing the counter-movement to climb immediately.
The only thing that we do not know is what version of TCAS this is supposed to simulate, because newer TCAS systems can interrogate each other and issue resolution advisories not only based on own observed data, but also on data received from the opposite TCAS.
Related Question: How does TCAS work?
The entire situation could have been part of the training scenario, as this was done in a simulator, according to the YouTube description:

Practising TCAS RA manoeuvers during our MCC course in a Boeing 747-200 full-flight simulator. This one was quite confusing when the TCAS' voice advised to climb just after having asked to descend.

Even if it's modern TCAS, that could still happen - just because the other plane gets an RA, even if it's a climb RA, doesn't mean they necessarily won't descend.

In TCAS jargon this is called an RA reversal. (Ref p.33)

This appears to be a TCAS 7.0 based on the phrases used.  "Descend, Descend" (two times) is only on v7.0 and 7.1 and "Adjust vertical speed" was only used on version 7.0 (older TCAS say "Reduce climb" and 7.1 says "Level off").  However even with a modern TCAS equipped,  RA coordination only exists in certain circumstances.

See below for a description of how the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) display is showing another aircraft approaching in each frame:

900 feet below and climbing
800 feet below and climbing

The traffic advisory (TA) gives the pilots the chance to avoid or at least anticipate conflict

500 feet below and still climbing

The resolution advisory (RA) gives pilots instructions that should prevent a collision between the aircraft
The RA tells pilot to descend

They are level at FL270, so descending will allow the other aircraft to continue climbing above them

The TCAS in the other aircraft will tell them to keep climbing

500 below and descending

The RA changes to "climb"

The other aircraft has started descending, contradicting the TCAS instructions
The pilot should climb now to avoid the other aircraft

800 below and climbing

The RA changes to "adjust vertical speed"

There is now more vertical distance between the aircraft
The pilot should adjust their vertical speed to remain clear of the traffic

700 below and climbing

Clear of conflict

The aircraft have passed each other by this point, without colliding, so TCAS and the pilots worked together to prevent (simulated) disaster

The TCAS display shows other aircraft as shapes depending on proximity and the risk of collision.

Source
The symbols in the simulator from the video are slightly different, but you can see the aircraft go from non-threat (first frame), to traffic advisory (second frame), to resolution advisory (third and fourth frames).
In addition to the symbol, basic information about the aircraft's altitude is displayed. The numbers represent the difference in altitude in hundreds of feet (negative means below your aircraft), and the arrow represents climb or descent over 500 feet per minute. See here for info about the symbols.


text:
What can pilots do to spot the onset of hypoxia?
If there is a loss of/lack of air pressure at high altitude, without an explosive decompression (for instance as on Helios 522 or N47BA) are there any signs that pilots can look out for that they might not be getting enough oxygen?
Does an audible alarm exist on any commercial jets when cabin pressure is at a dangerous level?
It's my understanding that the brain is impaired, and reaction times are increased with oxygen deprivation. Are there any techniques to combat this, after noticing hypoxia onset? e.g. slowed breathing

In a Cessna Turbo 310 at 16,000 feet with two of us on oxygen, I decided to try a little experiment. I removed my mask and sat there for about 15 minutes. I felt fine, but then I tried a little exercise I had been told about. With pencil and paper I tried to do a couple of problems consisting of multiplying two 4-digit numbers. I found I couldn't do it, as I would forget the carry. Then I tried writing down the carry and was able to do it. After putting the oxygen back on, I checked both problems with a calculator. Both answers were wrong!

Yes, all pressurized aircraft have cabin altitude (= altitude at which the same pressure as currently in the cabin normally occurs) indicator with alert when it exceeds safe value.
On Helios 522 that alarm did sound. The crew however mistook it for configuration alarm which only makes sense during take-off roll and thus considered it spurious. When the technician they called realized it was cabin altitude warning, the pilots were already too confused to carry out his orders.
The symptoms are already listed in the other answer. The problem is that the initial symptoms feel just like fatigue. One starts to feel sleepy and at that moment one might not realize it could be due to hypoxia as mental capacity is already reduced.

A good amount of information can be found in the Operator's Guide to Human Factors in Aviation:

Hypoxia can be recognized from both objective (i.e., capable of being perceived by an observer) and subjective (i.e., perceived by the pilot only) symptoms. Objective signs include increased rate and depth of breathing, tachycardia, cyanosis (blue-colored lips and nails), mental confusion, anger, euphoria, poor judgment, loss of muscle coordination, slouching and loss of consciousness. Behavioral changes may be noted by the hypoxic individual, as well as by the observer. The subjective symptoms include breathlessness, apprehension, headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, hot and cold flashes, blurred vision, tunnel vision, tingling, and numbness.

The only way to reverse the effects of hypoxia is to provide the lungs with a greater partial pressure of oxygen. This can be done using either supplemental oxygen (mask), or descending to a lower altitude. Corrective action must be taken quickly, as any delay makes the effects of hypoxia worse.

Thank you for the excellent reference. Especially the "Time of useful consciousness" table is quite interesting.


text:
Is there a website which highlights airport locations on a map?
Is there a good website which shows airports (both public and GA)? I can look it on Google and Bing Maps (as shown in the image below). Shown the picture, I have zoomed in a lot to see airport icons (bottom left and top right). I feel that the icon on Bing (right) can be easily spotted than the one on Google (left). Even if I zoom out one level, Bing still shows both airports but Google doesn't.
When I search on Internet, mostly A/F Directories are returned. Wikipedia also has a thorough list but I don't like plotting them on a map to find their proximity.

FltPlan.com has a great airport mapping engine.  Just click on "Nearby Airports" on the main page and enter the location that you want to search around.
You can search by zip code, city name, or an existing airport id and filter the results by minimum runway length, distance, approach types, and fuel.
Here's an example of the results:

SkyVector is a great resource for aviation maps and data of all kinds. It offers worldwide sectional- and low-ifr-type charts, and a fully-featured Airports section.
I'm not sure if you also want airport diagrams, but you may also get some decent results with OpenStreetMap. The open source maps have some hit-or-miss levels of detail for airports, some including full taxiway and runway data. Others are just property outlines.

SkyVector is great but it is hard to find airports, unless there is some highlight I can turn on. OpenStreetMap is slow but did provide the information you mentioned.

Ah, yeah, I see what you mean. Aside from using aviation charts, I'm not sure there are very good options highlighting airports. SkyVector's METAR mode helps, but it's obviously only gonna catch airports with weather reporting.

World Aero Data shows airports on a map, although I did find an airport which isn't mentioned.
Other than that, the map and airports are easily visible, irrespective of zoom level.

OurAirports, the continuation of DAFIF by community effort (since Australia (and possibly some other countries) copyrighted their official data) would be the obvious one.

For the purposes you state, I think that VFRMap is the best resource.
I really like SkyVector for aeronautical planning purposes, but the distinction of VFRMap is the inclusion of some of the various Google Map options in addition to the aeronautical charts. This offers what is essentially Google Maps with airport locations overlaid.
See the following two examples from VFRMap depicting first the Sectional background and then the Google Map Roadmap background.

Additional map backgrounds include VFR and IFR aeronautical charts, as well as Google's Roadmap, Satellite, and Terrain maps.
One of VFRMap's shortcomings is that it's airport database is limited to the United States.


text:
How to calculate angular velocity and radius of a turn?
How can I calculate with known tangents of different angles and by rules of thumb?
Which formulae should I use for fps and NM?

What do you mean by "tangents of angles"?

math constant values

Your terminology is a little confusing, but I'm going to assume you're asking how to calculate turn radius and rate of turn based on airspeed and bank angle. These formulas can all be found in the FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge which is available for free online.
The Handbook gives the formulas for rate of turn and turning radius on page 4-34:
$$R=\frac{V^2}{11.26\tan\theta}$$
$$\omega=\frac{1,091\tan\theta}{V}$$
The variables used are:

$V$ = true airspeed in knots
$R$ = turning radius in feet
$\theta$ = bank angle in degrees
$\omega$ = rate of turn in degrees per second

For example, at 120 knots and a 30° bank angle, the turn radius and rate of turn are:
$$R=\frac{120^2}{11.26\tan30}=\frac{14,400}{11.26\times0.5773}=2,215 feet\approx\frac13nautical~mile$$
$$\omega=\frac{1,091\tan30}{120}=\frac{1,091\times0.5773}{120}=5.25°/sec$$
The "magic constants" in these formulas ($11.26$ and $1,091$) are conversion factors for the units involved (knots, feet, and degrees). Physicists would use unitless formulas involving $g$, acceleration due to gravity (roughly $9.8m/sec^2$).
You can also rearrange the formulas above using simple algebra to figure out the required bank angle given a desired rate of turn or turn radius.
Finally, note that things get a lot more complicated if you factor in winds aloft. Rate of turn will always be the same regardless of wind, but turning radius no longer applies because the aircraft will trace a spiral path along the ground, not a circle. The turn will be "sharper" on the upwind portion of the turn and "wider" on the downwind portion. This is why turns around a point is a complex maneuver taught in basic flight training: in order to fly a circular ground track, the pilot must constantly vary the aircraft's bank angle according to wind: lower bank angle upwind, higher bank angle downwind. The pilot must also use the rudder correctly to keep the turn coordinated at all times.
Other useful links:

Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (quoted above)
Aviation Formulary has a section on turns
Standard rate turn article on Wikipedia
Banked turn article on Wikipedia

There are also some "Related Questions" over on the right-hand side of this page that might be useful.

Physicist would never ever use a unitless formula. They are very careful with their units. They would, however, use a consistent unit system (of which SI is the most widely used, but consistent unit systems based on US customary units exist too).

@JanHudec I think you misunderstood what I meant by "unitless" -- I meant that the formula would contain no unit conversion terms and would be unit-agnostic (you can mix and match units all you want as long as you do the proper dimensional analysis to figure out what units are coming out as a result of the inputs).

dvnrrs, thanks for your answer. You don`t use those 2 rules of thumb, do you?

@user1876 I don't do any of this in the cockpit. I use the turn coordinator, and I've also flown enough hours that I just know roughly what the bank angle should be at the airspeeds I fly. If you don't have an easy way to see standard-rate in the cockpit, in my opinion this calculation should be something you do on the ground, and just memorize the values. Save your brainpower in the cockpit for something else, like keeping up a good instrument scan.

I can't directly edit the answer, but in the first formula it should be V^2 rather than V_2.

DaG, I changed it. You are right. CN somebody explain to me where the0.5773 comes from in the 'turn rate' example? It appears out of nowhere. Or should the 'tan30' be removed as it is the answer of that part?

@Jelmer I edited out the tan(30) part which was probably left from copy pasting the previous member. tan(30°) = 0.5773.

After all these answers with Imperial Units, let me explain it with SI units, starting from first principles. R is the radius, v the flight speed, m the mass, g the gravitational constant, Φ is the bank angle and L the lift.

The lift needs to be equal to the weight (m·g) and the centrifugal force (m·ω²·R = m·$\frac{v^2}{R}$), so
$$L = \sqrt{(m{\cdot}g)^2 + (m{\cdot}{\omega}^2{\cdot}R)} = \frac{\rho}2{\cdot}v^2{\cdot}c_L{\cdot}S$$
with ρ the air density, $c_L$ the lift coefficient and S the surface area of the wing. Now convert so you get v:
$$v = \sqrt[\Large{4\;}]{\frac{(m{\cdot}g)^2}{{(\frac{\rho}2{\cdot}c_L{\cdot}S)^2} - (\frac{m}{R})^2}}$$
Now you can see that the nominator cannot become zero or less, which gives you the minimal radius for a given speed and maximum lift coefficient $c_{L max}$:
$$R ≥ \frac{2{\cdot}m}{\rho\cdot c_{L max}{\cdot}S}$$ when neglecting weight and more precisely
$$R ≥ \sqrt{\frac{m^2}{(\frac{\rho}2{\cdot}c_{L max}{\cdot}S)^2 - (\frac{m\cdot g}{v^2})^2}}$$ when we account for the fact that lift not only needs to counteract the centrifugal forces but also needs to keep the airplane up in the air.
This was for the minimum radius. For an arbitrary circle we only need to switch the maximum lift coefficient for the actual one, like this: $$R = \frac{m}{\sqrt{(\frac{\rho}2{\cdot}c_{L}{\cdot}S)^2 - (\frac{m\cdot g}{v^2})^2}} = \frac{v}{\omega} = \frac{v^2}{g\cdot\sqrt{n_z^2-1}}$$
This is like a "radius barrier": Turns cannot be flown tighter than that. This is due to the increase in centrifugal force which comes from flying steeper turns. The steeper the turn, the faster you must fly to create enough lift to compensate both weight and centrifugal force.
What does still increase is your angular velocity ω:
$${\omega} = \frac{v}{R} = \frac{g{\cdot}tan{\Phi}}{v} = \frac{g\cdot\sqrt{n_z^2-1}}{v}$$
Below I have plotted them for a glider. You can clearly see the radius barrier at 40 m. Trust me, it looks just the same for an airliner, only the numbers are bigger.

If you want a quick formula for estimating the radius, you need to use the square of airspeed, so this is not a simple linear relationship. For a turn with 30° bank ($n_z$ = 1.15), the denominator of the radius equation is about 4, so to calculate the turn radius in meters, divide the square of airspeed by 4 or take the square of half your airspeed in meters per second.
For the turn rate in degree per second, divide 220 by your airspeed in meters per second. Flying slower allows for a higher turn rate.
Now for the other extreme: Hypersonic aircraft need lots of space for maneuvering. I have here some values, just for fun:

The high speed makes this almost tolerable, after all, a half turn at Mach 6 and 2 g takes only 336 seconds, that's under 6 minutes. Airliners bank to only 30° or less, so the first column is valid if you fly your hypersonic vehicle like an airliner.

Finally a proper SI answer with a bit of background to it! There is no need to get the lift coefficient involved though, don't make it too complex. But if you want to do complex then consider that at high speeds, your apparent weight is less. The turn radii you have calculated are too low for Mach 6 (effectively the weight is about 10% less, so the radius is about 10% bigger if travelling eastwards at Mach 6 above the equator)

@DeltaLima: You are right, but I did not want to make it too complex ;-)

@Peter, Wouldn't  it be simpler (or at least equivalent) to just use Pythagoras, and note that in any turn, the aircraft total G (T) is the hypotenuse, the radial G (R)  is the horizontal component, and One (1) G is the vertical component, so you can use the formula   $R^2$ + 1 = $T^2$  and Turn Radius = $V^2$ / Radial G =  $V^2$ / ($T^2$ - 1)?

@CharlesBretana: The very first formula in the answer applies Pythagoras already. I expressed R in terms of $c_L$, but of course I can add more ways to calculate it.

@Peter, Yes I saw that. Didn't mean to imply that your answer omitted or ignored that fact, just that it might be a simpler derivation to start with the Pythagorean formula expressed in G- units rather than lift forces. I was guessing that by doing that you might get to the result with fewer steps. No biggy though.

If you're going to do this in a cockpit, a good rule of thumb will help more than an exact formula:

Bank angle for rate 1 turn is $\frac{speed}{10}+7$.

and

Turn diameter is 1% of the speed.

eg. for a 120kts turn you need $\frac{120}{10}+7=19°$ of bank and have a $\frac{120}{100}=1.2$nm turn diameter

Out of curiosity have you ever had occasion to need to do this in the cockpit? I've always wondered, and never have myself.

Bank angle maybe a couple of times in a G1000 where a rate 1 is kinda' hard to see as there is no proper turn coordinator so I'd rather aim for a specific bank and hold it. Turn diameter not so much...

Another approach is to just note that in any level turn, the relationship between total aircraft G ($G_T$), radial G ($G_R$), and God's G must conform to Pythagoras.
so
    $G_T^2 = G_R^2 + 1$
or,
    $G_R = \sqrt{G_T^2 - 1}$
and since turn radius is Velocity squared over radial G,
    $$R = \frac{V^2}{\sqrt{G_T^2 - 1}}$$
total aircraft G, of course is just the Lift divided by the aircraft weight.
and if we are below maneuvering speed, (lowest airspeed at which we can generate placard G-Limit load factor) and turning at the maximum Angle of Attack (AOA), then aircraft Lift is $C_{Lmax}  p  V^2 S$ and the weight, of course, can be represented by the Lift generated at at $C_Lmax$ when at Stall speed or $C_{Lmax}  p  V_s^2 S$.
So total aircraft G, ($G_T$), which is simply Lift divided by Weight, can be represented as $\frac{C_{Lmax}  p  V^2 S}{C_{Lmax}  p  V_s^2 S}$ or $\frac{V^2}{V_S^2}$
Substituting into the turn radius formula, we get the turn radius formula for a level max performance turn, (BELOW MANEUVERING SPEED), expressed as a function of aircraft True airspeed and Aircraft stall speed (in True):
$$R = \frac{V^2 V_s^2}{g (\sqrt{V^4-V_s^4})}$$
where:

$R$ .... Turn radius
$V$....  Aircraft true air speed
$V_S$... Stall speed (TAS)
$g$ .... 32.2 $ft/sec^2$ (necessary to convert from Earth - G units to $ft/sec^2$

Graphing, it looks like the below: This is for an aircraft with a stall speed of 58 kt (true) and a placard G-limit of 3.8 Gs. (The kink at 122 Kt is due to the fact that once we are faster than maneuvering speed, we are limited by placard G and can no longer reach $C_{Lmax}$ without breaking or over stressing the airframe.)

"God's g?"-- this question could be improved by explaining or deleting this

A simple rule of thumb for turn radius for a standard-rate turn is to divide airspeed by 180. For example at 90 kts it is .5 nm, and at 120 kts it is .66 nm. The turn radius is useful to decide when to lead a turn when approaching a fly-by fix. So for example at 90 kts, when .5 nm from the fix, begin a 90 degree turn. This is calculated by considering the speed of 90 nm per hour = 90/60 nm per minute, for 2 minutes for a standard rate turn, gives a 3nm circumference circle, which is approximately pi, so the diameter of that circle is approximately 1, and the radius is 0.5 nm. Substituting x for 90 in the original formula gives pi*2x/60 approximately equals x/180. Note that this does not account for wind or true airspeed.